The Little Man Who Wasn't There

The Man Wasn' T There - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 30th Aug, 2008 - 9:05am

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?
 

Posts: 5 - Views: 796
KoZ2 - Kingdom of Zion Topic - Addressing sexual relations - opinion.
3rd Dec, 2007 - 8:42pm / Post ID: #

The Little Man Who Wasn't There

The Little Man Who Wasn't There

Another topic for rebuttal / Discussion...

QUOTE

                                    The

                                  LITTLE MAN

                              WHO ISN'T THERE

                                      by

                              Samuel W. Taylor




[1]                    The Little Man Who Isn't There
                                      by
                              Samuel W. Taylor

  As I was going up the stair,
  I met a man who wasn't there.
  He wasn't there again today,
  I wish, I wish he'd go away.

I must wonder if Mormons realize the significance of the fact that in
California sexual relationships between consenting adults is no longer against
the law, be it boy meets girl, girl meets girl, or boy meets boy. This
landmark legislation was eventually achieved despite an impassioned stand by a
coterie of legislators from a stronghold of rectitude in the southland who had
previously blocked passage with Bibles opened, thundering denunciation of the
abominations of Sodom and Gomorrah. Proponents of the legislation had
maintained that the primary purpose of police work was to maintain law and
order, not enforce private morality. Debate on the bill revealed that at Long
Beach 25% of the city's police force had been detailed to full-time duty at
latrines to apprehend gays, instead of being out coping with crimes of
violence, street gangs, drive-by shootings, arson, robbery, drug dealing, and
whatever. And this enlightened viewpoint eventually prevailed.

In the onrush of permissive morality, gays and lesbians emerged from the
closet, demanding their right to a deviant lifestyle. Throughout the nation
restrictions against birth control information have been largely swept away.
Abortion, formerly a back-alley crime with an appalling toll of unfortunate
teenage victims, also is out of the closet, generally legal though bitterly
contested.

[2] The times, they are a-changing. You probably don't remember censorship
conditions back when a motion picture, called "The Moon is Blue", was denied
the Production Code imprimatur because the heroine uttered the awful line,
"I'm a virgin." What shocking language! It implied, the censors said, that
there might have been some doubt about the situation. Then when the film's
producer refused to cut the line, the picture was denied the Production Code
okay, which meant it couldn't be distributed through regular channels - a
virtual death sentence.

At that time, a total of 91 production companies obediently submitted
their films "for the approval of the Production Code of the Motion Picture
Association of America, Inc." There were three "General Principles": (1) "No
picture...shall lower the standards of those who see it...."; (2) "Correct
standards of life. . .shall be presented;" (3) "Law, natural or human, shall
not be ridiculed...."

"Particular Applications" included the following: Brutal killings are not
to be presented in detail. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.
Methods of crime should not be explicitly presented. There must be no scenes
which show the use of illegal drugs, or their effects, in detail. The use of
liquor, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, shall
not be shown.

As for boy meets girl, adultery or illicit sex must be explicitly treated
or justified, or presented attractively. Scenes of passion are forbidden
except when essential to the plot. And passion must be treated in such a
manner so as not to stimulate the lower and baser emotions. They are never the
proper subject for comedy. Sex perversion or any inference is forbidden--no
gays, no incest, no child molestation, no window peepers, no rapists, no
twisted killers.

Profane or vulgar expressions, however used, are forbidden--such as "I'm
a virgin." The following words or [3] phrases are verboten: Alley cat (applied
to a woman); Bronx cheer (the sound); chippie, cocotte; God, Lord, Jesus,
Christ (except reverently); cripes; fanny; fairy (in a vulgar sense); "Hold
your hat"; Madam (supplied to prostitution); nance, nerts; nuts (except when
meaning crazy); pansy; razberry (the sound); slut (applied to a woman);
S.O.B.; son-of-a; tart; toilet gags; tom cat (applied to a man); traveling
salesman and farmer's daughter jokes; whore; darn, hell (except when use is
essential).

Complete nudity is never permitted. Undressing scenes should be avoided.
Dancing scenes must not permit undue exposure. Item: A girl's leg could be
shown above the knee with stocking, or without stocking, but it was forbidden
to show it partly with stocking and partly without. No couple can be shown
together in bed, not even if married; they must sleep in twin beds. There must
be no suggestion at any time of excessive brutality. There must be no display,
at any time, of machine guns or sub-machine guns in the hands of gangsters,
nor off-stage sounds of the repercussions of these guns. The flaunting of
weapons by gangsters or other criminals will not be allowed. Gangsters mustn't
even talk about guns. There must be no scenes showing law officers, bank
guards or private detectives dying at the hands of criminals.

Kidnapping cannot be the main theme of the story. The kidnapped person
cannot be a child. There must be no details of how it was done. The kidnappers
mustn't profit, and they must be punished. And, finally, "Because of its evil
consequences, the drug traffic should not be presented in any form. The
existence of the trade should not be brought to the attention of audiences."

And this, kind friends and gentle hearts, was the situation when "The
Moon is Blue" was denied the Production Code seal because the heroine said,
"I'm a virgin." And so, denied release in general distribution channels, the
film was booked here and there in independent theatres. Well, what [4]
happened, it was a good movie, and news of the blackballing didn't hurt the
box office. People loved it. They stood in line for tickets. Money talks,
particularly in show business. As a result, "The Moon is Blue" went into
national distribution, and the strangle-hold of the Production Code was broken
forever.



Sponsored Links:
3rd Dec, 2007 - 8:43pm / Post ID: #

There Wasnt Man The

Continued...

QUOTE


The pendulum has swung wildly in the other direction, until today the
explicit bedroom scene is virtually obligatory, and the question is not,
"Shall we dance?" but "My place or yours?" Screen dialogue is reminiscent of
an army barracks. Best-selling authors are turning out sex books which in the
good old days would have circulated under the counter or in "adult"
bookstores. Instead of saying, "I love you", the swain today with a
four-letter word invites the lovely young thing to hop into bed. That, alas,
is the new romance. The only unutterable words at present are "good taste".
The LDS Church is most firmly opposed to the new permissiveness. We are
enlisted in anti-pornography drives. In areas which it can control, such as
productions on its stages, films made by the BYU Motion Picture Department,
and conduct of its membership, there is no compromise with traditional values.
This is as it should be. Certainly moral standards are the concern of a
church, just as law and order are of the police.

Yet amidst the brouhaha, I wonder if the Saints in general realize what
the new permissiveness which is sweeping the nation's culture could mean to
them personally, and the predicament in which it might possibly place the
Church? While members in good standing would show scant interest in the new
freedom as it pertains to homosexuality, to group love, to wife-swapping and
promiscuous "swinging", how many of us are aware that the new permissiveness
has actually repealed laws against the practice of plural marriage?

Of course, every state has laws against bigamy, but I'm talking about the
practice. The distinction is that, except for a [5] few years, the practice
was secret; and the marriage ceremony was always secret. When Ann Eliza Webb
sued Brigham Young for divorce, she called herself "wife number 19." Irving
Wallace called her "The Twenty-Seventh Wife." But John J. Steward listed her
as number 51 of a total of 53. John Taylor had seven "official" wives, but my
brother Raymond confirmed nine "lesser-known" ones, for a total of 16. My
mother was married in the New and Everlasting Covenant during a carriage ride
in Liberty Park. None of her eight children had a birth certificate. Polygamy
was officially denied but secretly practiced because of the belief that it was
the only means of attaining the Celestial Glory.

With the new permissiveness, a man could live with one mistress or with
several wives, unhampered by the law.

Section 132 is still in the Doctrine and Covenants. Plural marriage is
still part of our doctrine. The practice was discontinued for one reason, and
one reason only: it had been declared illegal. In issuing the Manifesto,
President Woodruff said,

      Inasmuch as laws have been enacted in Congress forbidding plural
    marriage, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of
    last resort, . . . I now publicly declare that my advice to the
    Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden
    by the law of the land.

We should remember that the Manifesto came only after the Church had
fought tenaciously with its every resource for a period of twenty-eight years
against federal laws prohibiting polygamy. The appeal to higher courts was
based on the first amendment to the Constitution, which forbade Congress to
infringe upon religious freedom. Legally, polygamy wasn't a crime malum en se
-- bad in itself because of injury to others, such as arson, murder,
extortion, rape or robbery--but was malum prohibitum, a crime only because
there was a law against it. Plural marriage injured nobody; Gentiles simply
[6] imposed their own moral code upon the Mormon marriage relationship.

When the Supreme Court upheld anti-polygamy legislation in 1879, the
Church chose to obey the law of God in defiance of the law of the land for a
period of eleven years, before finally issuing the Manifesto in 1890. And in
practice, the Woodruff Manifesto meant that the Church officially ceased the
practice, while the priesthood authority simply took it underground again, as
it had been practiced throughout most of the Church's history.

While polygamy was against the law of the land, there was no law against
it on the high seas. In Canada you could have one extra wife, in Mexico, as
many as you wished. In my home town, Provo, there were a number of "old maids"
whom we all knew were "latter-day" secret wives. One of these was on the BYU
faculty when I attended, while a man professor had three wives. The Salt Lake
Tribune accused seven Apostles of taking wives after the Manifesto, while in
Dialogue (18:62-63), Michael Quinn said,

      "Circumstantial evidence indicates that Wilford Woodruff married
    Madame (Lydia von F) Mountford as a plural wife in 1897"

which was seven years after the Manifesto.

There were at least a dozen manifestos plugging various gaps until the
last and absolutely final--final one in 1933, one hundred and three years
after the revelation of 1831 first initiated the practice of plural marriage
as Church doctrine.

Inasmuch as my grandfather, John Taylor, initiated what was called the
"grand conspiracy" of taking the Principle underground, and personally set
apart hundreds of men to perform marriages, with endowments, "at any place
convenient"; inasmuch as he led this rebellion to the day of his death [7] --
he died on the underground with a price on his head -- I feel close to this
gallant struggle against hopeless odds.

And I wonder what Mormons would do if the repeal of sex laws swept away
the only reason for not obeying the Section 132? Would we, or would we not,
embrace the awesome responsibilities undertaken by past generations? While my
crystal ball license has expired and I've mislaid my seer stone, I suspect
that regardless of Section 132, the Saints would put up a ferocious fight
against legislation that would result in the right to practice the Principle.
My guess is that if such laws should sweep the country, Utah and the states of
what H L called the Bible Belt would stand firm in opposition. And that
strange sound you would hear would be John Taylor and other pioneer stalwarts
whirling in their graves.



29th Aug, 2008 - 10:45am / Post ID: #

The Little Man Who Wasn't There Studies Doctrine Mormon

Is there a year available of when this was published? It is so interesting to me to think of what the standards were for shows and now....WHAT STANDARDS?



29th Aug, 2008 - 11:53am / Post ID: #

There Wasnt Man The

Only what I got from the original KOZ2.org site is here, and you are right... what standards? Sometimes I go to Church and cannot tell the difference between dress styles of the world and Members of the Church, even men.



30th Aug, 2008 - 9:05am / Post ID: #

There Wasnt Man The

I think one of the saddest conversations I ever heard took place among women of the church that were endowed members. They were discussing ways that allowed them to wear the shorter pants or shorter sleeves without showing their garments. What really got to me was if they could hear what they were saying from the outside--it sounded something along the lines of, "I want to wear these fashions and if I can buy my garments a size or two smaller or get a petite, then I am still wearing them but I get the best of both worlds", kind of attitude. I think that in that situation the Lord would be less pleased with us then someone out of the church wearing a tank top or mini skirt. Just my opinion.




 
> TOPIC: The Little Man Who Wasn't There
 

▲ TOP


International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2024
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,